Hans Meine wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 September 2009 11:01:37 Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>> Is it intended for deserialization to uncouple arrays that share a
>> common base?
>> I think it's not really intended, but it's a limitation by design.
I wonder why a "base" attribute is even restored, then? If there is no
care to restore the shared views, then views could simply be serialized
as arrays?
> AFAIK, it's related to Luca Citi's recent "ultimate base" thread - you simply
> cannot ensure serialization of arbitrary ndarrays in this way, because they
> may point to *any* memory, not necessarily an ndarray-allocated one.
That's true in general. I wonder if it's possible to restore shared
arrays if (by virtue of "base" attribute) we know that the ndarray
shares the memory of another ndarray.